Largely since 1970 the new techniques of recombinant DNA technology have been developed
in molecular biology to unlock the coded messages of the long DNA molecules in living
cells.17 An utterly amazing picture of
complexity, diversity, and variability has been revealed in the genes and chromosomes. It
is now know that many genes are not continuous chains of the four nucleotide codons. They
are spit up into two or more segments called "exons." Separating the
code-bearing exons are "introns," DNA segments which do not code for proteins.
Many chromosomes are found to include numerous copies, sometimes hundreds, of a particular
gene. Another common feature in many chromosomes is long segments made up of short
sequences of DNA that are repeated perhaps hundreds, even thousands of times.

It has also been found that some genes or segments of genes, called transposable
elements, can move rather easily to different positions in the chromosome or to a
different chromosome (These have sometimes humorously been called "jumping
genes"). A most important advance in the progress of molecular biology was the
discover that small circular DNA molecules in bacterial cells, the plasmids, are able to
transmit genes for resistance to antibiotics or other functions--from one bacterium to
another, or even from one bacterial species to another. And there are other surprising
processes which change and mix the DNA of organisms. In transduction some viruses pick up
DNA segments and carry them into bacteria, where the DNA is incorporated into the
bacterial chromosome. Mostly observed in microorganisms, gene transfer also is know to
occur in some higher organisms. Several of these naturally occurring processes have been
harnessed by scientists to insert foreign DNA including entire genes or groups of genes
into the chromosomes of chosen target organisms. These techniques are the basis for the
new technology of genetic engineering by which special strains of bacteria are genetically
tailored with genes which enable them to produce medically and industrially important
hormones, enzymes, antibodies, and chemical compounds. A practical example of this is the
industrial production of the human insulin hormone. This means that people with diabetes
can now inject themselves with pure human insulin which is totally free of contamination
with allergins from cattle or pigs.

But does this vast new body of knowledge about the intricacy, diversity and variability
of DNA in living organisms provide a testable scientific explanation or theory for the
origin of life and for the evolutionary descent of all species from one or a few original
simple life forms? The answer to this crucially important question is NO. The fact is
that, as of this time (1994) at the level of the genes and chromosomes, there are no
mechanistic explanations or testable scientific theories for (1) biological inheritance of
specific complex structures, (2) embryonic development, e.g., from egg to chicken, (3)
speciation, or (4) true evolutionary change, i.e., the origin of new kinds of plants and
animals which possess new complex design features.

Let us explain and substantiate this assertion. Molecular biologists have the
capability of determining the entire sequence of the nucleotides(genetic code letters) in
the DNA molecule in a simple organism such as a bacterium. An international genome project
has been initiated to determine the entire human genome. As we pointed out earlier, for
the E. coli bacterium this would be about 3,800,000 genetic code letters, which
would fill a book of about 1,300 pages with 3,000 letters on a page. For the 46 human
chromosomes it would be some six billion code letters filling 2,000 books of 1,000 pages
each. So for the more complex organisms, we would have a small library of books filled
with the DNA information from a certain species. Let us turn this book or library for a
particular species over to a group of scientists and ask them to determine for us from
this total DNA information what the structure, functions, and behavior of this species
are. They could not do it. Thus, although scientists understand fairly well how the DNA is
inherited and how particular genes for particular protein molecules are inherited, they do
not know how to relate the DNA information to what the organism actually is. That is, from
the nucleotide sequence in the DNA they cannot tell what structures, functions and
behavior are being inherited. For example, it is not known what the information for the
construction of a feather, a tooth, or a liver is. Nor is it known how such information is
stored in the DNA. Thus, at the molecular level of the structure of the genes and
chromosomes there is no testable scientific theory for biological inheritance.

In like manner, scientists cannot predict the course of embryonic development from the
DNA coded information,18Consider
the following quotation from an article entitled "The Molecular Architects of Body
Design" which explains results of the latest studies of embryonic development:

All animals develop from a single fertilized egg cell that goes through many rounds of
division, often yielding millions of embryonic cells. In a dazzling and still mysterious
feat of self-organization, these cells arrange themselves into a complete organism, in
which bone, muscle, brain and skin integrate into a homogenious whole.19

The article reports a wealth of information about groups of similar genes in fruit
flies, mice and humans that control the production of proteins which direct the order of
segment and structures in the developing embryos. This research is very important, but it
still does not reveal how the information for the structural designs are stored in DNA and
how the information is converted into the actual structures, for example, a tooth, a
feather, or a liver. Thus we can assert that science still cannot explain why an egg turns
into a chicken in 21 days. Is it not obvious, then, that science cannot explain how an
amoeba turned into a university professor in 3 billion years?

Nor do they know just what happens to bring about the formation of a new species.20It is obvious, then, that on the
level of molecular biology where all the action is supposed to be, science lacks either
demonstrable mechanistic explanations or testable scientific theories for evolutionary
change.21 If scientists cannot explain
why an egg becomes a chicken in 21 days, it is certain that they cannot explain how an
amoeba became a university professor in 3 billion years. What evolutionary scientists do
have is hope that some day they will have the explanations and theories they desire.

This hope is not science; it can be and is a motivation for research by scientists who
believe in evolution. On the other hand it should be observed that the contrary belief can
be a motivation for new thinking and research on the part of scientists who believe in
creation. A good illustration of this is the hypothesis in genetics advanced by A.J. Jones
which was described earlier in this chapter.9
It is to be hoped that geneticists who believe in creation will undertake research to test
this and other new ideas. Such research can demonstrate the fact that hypotheses
constructed within the creation conceptual model or framework for biology can indeed
proved to be fruitful for science.

Speciation is a process which is part of the evolutionary scenario for the history of
life and also of the creation model for biology. There is no question that new species
have developed since the Flood of Noah, but the new species have all been within the
boundaries of the created kinds. The created kinds undoubtedly are higher categories than
species, perhaps at the level of genera or families. However, secular biologists will
agree that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species failed to explain the actual
mechanism of speciation. Prof. Ernst Mayr of Harvard University wrote concerning Darwin's Origin
of Species, "Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title to his
work."22 A recent review article on
"Genetics and speciation" by Dr. Jerry A Coyne of the Department of Ecology and
Evolution, University of Chicago, begins with the following synopsis: "Called the
'mystery of mysteries' by Darwin, speciation is still a little-understood area of
evolution. Genetic analysis, however, has yielded new generalizations about speciation and
suggests promising avenues of research."23
In his concluding paragraph Coyne quotes D.J. Futuyama's complaint that speciation
is"more thoroughly awash in unfounded and often contradictory speculation than any
other single topic in evolutionary theory."

As we have explained in Chapter-1, the central
problem for evolutionary theory is the origin not of species, but of complex new
biological designs. If two populations of organisms can exist in proximity to each other
without interbreeding, they are considered to be different species. There are numerous
examples of pairs of good species which are so similar to each other that to distinguish
between them requires microscopic examination of specimens by an expert. This kind of
variation, and even more striking change, is part of the creation model for biology. It is
the origination of new species which have complex new biological designs not possessed by
the species from which they diverged that pose the real problem for evolution. This
problem has not been solved, for the sequences of intermediate fossil types needed to
document the process of change are not to be found, the testable scientific theory to
explain the origin of new complex designs does not exist, nor have the mechanisms to
produce the new designs been discovered and demonstrated.

Another important unanswered question about biological inheritance is whether or not
all of the information necessary to describe any organism is actually carried in the DNA
and the cell structure. A materialistic scientist would, indeed, must say YES to this
question. But we really do not know this for a fact. That it is so can only at this point
be a working assumption for biologists. But there is some indication that the correct
answer to the question is NO. Let us consider the complexity of the human brain. The
cerebral cortex contains about 10 billion neurons, each one connecting by dendrites to
from 100 to thousands of other neurons. If we assume just 100 such connections for each of
the 10 billion neurons, the resulting network contains 100x10 billion = one trillion
connections. These connections can be made in 108,400,000,000,000
different patterns.24,11 If the
particular pattern used in the human brain is coded for in the DNA of human chromosomes,
the required information totals 2.8x1013
bits, i.e., 28 trillion bits. (Note: One bit is the uncertainty dispelled or the
information gained by obtaining the correct answer to a single yes-no question.) But the
human chromosomes, containing 3x109 DNA
code letters can carry a maximum of 2 bits of information per code letter for a total of
only 6x109, that is, 6 billion bits
compared with the 28 trillion bits needed to specify the neuronal network. Certain
possible corrections to these calculations can alter the above figure to a maximum storage
capacity of 4 billion bits in the human chromosomes compared with 7 trillion bits to
specify the brain network. The human genome is still insufficient by a factor of 1,400 to
specify the pattern of the brain network. And this does not allow for any information
storage for the rest of the human body, functions and behavior.

Some secular scientists have noted the above problem and offered possible solutions.
However, no really satisfactory solution has yet been proposed. The problem is neatly
transformed into a non-problem by faith faith in the omni-competence of the genome. If it
should turn out that there is, indeed, such a great insufficiency of required biological
information stored in the chromosomes, where is it stored? If it is not stored in some
cell structures, where can it be? Is it possible that much inherited information in each
species is not determined by purely physical factors? Perhaps essential information is
supernaturally provided and maintained by divine providence, as has been proposed by this
author.11 And the Scriptures do seem to
imply that there is an intiimate presence of the Spirit of God in all living things,
without which they die:

"You hide Your face, they are troubled; You take away their breath, they die and
return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; and You renew the face
of the earth" (Psalm 104:29, 30).

"If He should set His heart on it, if He should gather to Himself His Spirit and
His breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust" (Job 34:14, 15).

At this time secular science has no sure answer, but only an assumption with which to
answer the question. Why, then, should believers in the theory of evolution by mutations
and natural selection be so dogmatic? It must be admitted, however, that probably the
majority of biologists who believe in creation continue to agree with their secular
colleagues that the design information must be in the genome and other cellular
structures. We all have much to learn.

References

11. Kofahl, Robert E., "Is the Genome Sufficient,
Where Is the Design Information, and What Limits Variation?" Creation Research
Soc. Quarterly, Vol. 28, March 1992, pp. 146-148.